Is Paul an Apostle?

[ezeekl]

I would only contend, that Matthias was called by Jesus Himself, since Matthias was a witness to His whole ministry.

Contend all you want but give me evidence as I will do to answer your next question.

Also, where did Jesus send Saul? And when, where and by whom was Saul sent on his ministry?

Acts 9:10-16

"10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 **But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; **16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

 

[rcwitness]

Contend all you want but give me evidence as I will do to answer your next question.

I understand. But my point is that he was a disciple from the very beginning. This is logical to conclude that Jesus Himself was directly calling him to be a chosen instrument as well. His appointing by the Holy Spirit through the 11 is similar to Paul’s appointing through the Church. Are you saying Jesus did not choose Mathias to follow His ministry from beginning to end? I will agree, we don’t have the Scriptural proof that Jesus spoke specifically to Matthias and called him to follow Him.

**Acts 13:1-3 ** This was when Saul was actually sent.

Paul was sent out by the Holy Spirit through the Church. Prior to that, Jesus revealed Himself to Saul and sent him to the Church, but not on his ministry.

 

[_thaddeus]

Greek is similar to Latin as Latin is derived from Greek. I’m not an expert in Greek but then that is why there are lexicons available.

Should one infer that you are an expert in Latin? Are the lexicons that you use both current and inerrant? Pray tell. What lexicon do you recommend? Shouldn’t one inerrant and infallible lexicon be sufficient?

Indeed, the christian faith is not a religion of the book. After all, sola scriptura is heresy. But we also cannot ignore the written tradition. Paul urges us to hold on to both the written and the oral teachings. The Church has not formally defined whether Matthias is or is not an Apostle of Jesus Christ. But when it does, if it does, then I suspect a lot of parishes named St. Matthias the Apostle will be renamed just St. Matthias.

Like water off a duck’s back; it’s funny. Onlyism is a difficult condition to cure. Especially when it is a moving target. Onlyists’ understanding is their inspired absolute truth and by definition is beyond correction.

If the Catholic Church does not correct itself and conform to your remarkable personal lexicological understanding then you “see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”

Pope Benedict XVI will now try. Your personal understanding must surely supercede his teaching.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100514_porto_en.html
new.usccb.org/bible/readings/051413.cfm

Plus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthias
“According to old tradition, St. Matthias’s Day (February 24) is said to be the luckiest day of the year. This is because Matthias was the saint who was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. It has therefore been seen as a good day on which to buy lottery tickets or to participate in similar activities.”

ezeekl: If you really and truly would like to win the lottery, play on May 14. Double your odds by playing on February 24 also. If that doesn’t work try August 9. If you havn’t made your score by that time, wait for a leap year and cheat by playing on both February 24 and February 25. It is guaranteed. Good luck.

 

[ezeekl]

I understand. But my point is that he was a disciple from the very beginning. This is logical to conclude that Jesus Himself was directly calling him to be a chosen instrument as well. His appointing by the Holy Spirit through the 11 is similar to Paul’s appointing through the Church. Are you saying Jesus did not choose Mathias to follow His ministry from beginning to end? I will agree, we don’t have the Scriptural proof that Jesus spoke specifically to Matthias and called him to follow Him.

You are right Matthias was a disciple as were many others. But a disciple is nothing more than a follower. Being a disciple is one thing but being an Apostle is another. But here is the thing. If, as you say, he was a disciple from the very beginning then why wasn’t he picked by Jesus as were the others? And ,Yes, I am say that Jesus did not pick Matthias to follow His ministry from beginning to end. Matthias, like all of us, had free will so He followed Jesus because he wanted to not because he was made to.

**Acts 13:1-3 ** This was when Saul was actually sent.

Paul was sent out by the Holy Spirit through the Church. Prior to that, Jesus revealed Himself to Saul and sent him to the Church, but not on his ministry.

That is not what Acts 9:10-16 says.

 

[rcwitness]

You are right Matthias was a disciple as were many others. But a disciple is nothing more than a follower. Being a disciple is one thing but being an Apostle is another. But here is the thing. If, as you say, he was a disciple from the very beginning then why wasn’t he picked by Jesus as were the others? And ,Yes, I am say that Jesus did not pick Matthias to follow His ministry from beginning to end. Matthias, like all of us, had free will so He followed Jesus because he wanted to not because he was made to.

Matthias wasn’t picked to be an Apostle until there was an empty office. I know you say there is not an office of Apostle, but for the original twelve there was. BTW, how is a bishop chosen in the Church? Does the pope and the magisterium choose. Isn’t that what happened for Mattias? So his appointing was unique.

That is not what Acts 9:10-16 says.

It does not contradict. Jesus actually tells Annanias that He has chosen Paul to be an instrument. Paul says nothing until in Chapter 13 when the Holy Spirit tells the Church to set apart Saul and so they lay their hands on him and send him.

I don’t say this to take away Paul’s Apostleship, but to say we could look at Paul’s Apostleship in the same manner as you look at Matthias’

I actually think when Paul talks about “a man” being taken up to the 3rd heaven, he was referring to the Revelation Jesus showed him when he was on the road to Damascus…and as a result was blinded. He was then, dependant on the very Church he was percecuting. When fully recovered, he was able to grow in the grace given…which he did, and greatly so!

I don’t claim to be infallible with this view…I see where you are coming from. I like your dedication to searching it out. I don’t claim you are wrong, but that I think Matthias could be an Apostle just as well as Paul. They both had extroardinary appointings.

 

[ezeekl]

Matthias wasn’t picked to be an Apostle until there was an empty office. I know you say there is not an office of Apostle, but for the original twelve there was. BTW, how is a bishop chosen in the Church? Does the pope and the magisterium choose. Isn’t that what happened for Mattias? So his appointing was unique.

But the office, if you believe Peter and the scripture, was that of episkope, the office of a bishop. That is the office that Matthias occupied and that is abundantly clear from the scriptures. IF (big if) Matthias was elected as an Apostle then a form of the word apostolos would have been used insteadof episkope.

As for how bishops are chosen, our procedures today are different from those of the early church. The Apostles individually appointed bishops as Paul did with Timothy and Titus and John did with Polycarp and Peter did with Elvodius. Not sure of Ignatius as he succeeded Elvodius as bishop of Antioch.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

An apostle is one who is sent.

The 12 are unique in the respect that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel–in other words their office transcends any office only on Earth and extends beyond their deaths.

Matthias is one of the 12.

Paul is not one of the 12.

That doesn’t mean that he isn’t an apostle–he is.

He is arguably the greatest of the apostles in terms of his evangelism–look at all the books in the New Testament that are written by him.

The first will be last and the last will be first.

I don’t understand why some people just can’t get it that there were more than 12 apostles. Barnabas is an apostle for example.

You can be an apostle and also be a bishop. You can be one of the founders of the church in Rome like Paul was with Peter. You can lay your hands on others and make them bishops like St. Paul did–and Paul was sent by Jesus.

That doesn’t mean that Paul was one of the 12 or that Jesus intended him to be one of the 12. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Paul is an example to us of one born late–who persecuted the church–and then became one of the greatest apostles.

Matthias is also an example to us–he is one of the 12.

Ask yourself this: do you think that Jesus didn’t know that he would be one of the twelve all the time that Matthias was following Him?

Do you think that Jesus ever spoke to him?

A “Call” can come in many ways.

Barnabas was an apostle. Simon also know as a zealot we don’t know hardly anything about. Does that mean that he wasn’t special?

God sometimes calls people like Matthias and some like Simon–no one knows a lot about them–but GOD knows.

There are saints in the world–unknown to the world that do great things for the Kingdom of God that only God knows.

And one last thing: even though we may not know a lot about Matthias or Barnabas or Simon the zealot today–do you think that people of their time didn’t know a lot about them? I guarantee you that when they lived people of their time KNEW them and loved them as followers of Jesus and as apostles and bishops and leaders of churches newly formed that we don’t know about today.

How many people do you think they touched?

I bet you that in Heaven the story of the least person of all that is there will be told and known and all will rejoice that that person made it to heaven and their story will touch ALL those in heaven.

 

[ezeekl]

An apostle is one who is sent.

The 12 are unique in the respect that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel–in other words their office transcends any office only on Earth and extends beyond their deaths.

Matthias is one of the 12.

Paul is not one of the 12.

That doesn’t mean that he isn’t an apostle–he is.

He is arguably the greatest of the apostles in terms of his evangelism–look at all the books in the New Testament that are written by him.

The first will be last and the last will be first.

I don’t understand why some people just can’t get it that there were more than 12 apostles. Barnabas is an apostle for example.

You can be an apostle and also be a bishop. You can be one of the founders of the church in Rome like Paul was with Peter. You can lay your hands on others and make them bishops like St. Paul did–and Paul was sent by Jesus.

That doesn’t mean that Paul was one of the 12 or that Jesus intended him to be one of the 12. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Paul is an example to us of one born late–who persecuted the church–and then became one of the greatest apostles.

Matthias is also an example to us–he is one of the 12.

Ask yourself this: do you think that Jesus didn’t know that he would be one of the twelve all the time that Matthias was following Him?

Do you think that Jesus ever spoke to him?

A “Call” can come in many ways.

Barnabas was an apostle. Simon also know as a zealot we don’t know hardly anything about. Does that mean that he wasn’t special?

God sometimes calls people like Matthias and some like Simon–no one knows a lot about them–but GOD knows.

There are saints in the world–unknown to the world that do great things for the Kingdom of God that only God knows.

And one last thing: even though we may not know a lot about Matthias or Barnabas or Simon the zealot today–do you think that people of their time didn’t know a lot about them? I guarantee you that when they lived people of their time KNEW them and loved them as followers of Jesus and as apostles and bishops and leaders of churches newly formed that we don’t know about today.

How many people do you think they touched?

I bet you that in Heaven the story of the least person of all that is there will be told and known and all will rejoice that that person made it to heaven and their story will touch ALL those in heaven.

Quite frankly, I don’t think any of that matters. The basic facts are that Peter called for someone to takeover the office of bishop that Judas vacated [Acts 1:21]. He did not call for anyone to take over Judas’ apostleship. Indeed, Peter, quoting the Old Testament said that Judas’ house (habitation) (tent) would be desolate and no one would live in it. Judas’ house is his lineage or his successors. Recall that Joseph was said to be of the house of David {Luke 1:26-27).

“26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

Joseph was descended from David thus he was of David’s house. But Peter says that Judas’ house would be desolate and no one would succeed him.

Then again we have the problem of specificity. The Apostles (twelve of them) are the Apostles of Jesus Christ. In order to be that they have to be called and sent by Jesus. If they are sent by someone else then they are not an apostle of Jesus but rather an apostle of whoever sent them. We have many apostles today. But instead of calling them apostles, we call them by their Latin designation, missionaries. Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:1). Matthias is not. Matthis replaced Judas in the episcopcy but not in the apostleship.

 

[_thaddeus]

Quite frankly, I don’t think any of that matters. The basic facts are that Peter called for someone to takeover the office of bishop that Judas vacated [Acts 1:21]. He did not call for anyone to take over Judas’ apostleship. Indeed, Peter, quoting the Old Testament said that Judas’ house (habitation) (tent) would be desolate and no one would live in it. Judas’ house is his lineage or his successors. Recall that Joseph was said to be of the house of David {Luke 1:26-27).

“26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

Joseph was descended from David thus he was of David’s house. But Peter says that Judas’ house would be desolate and no one would succeed him.

Then again we have the problem of specificity. The Apostles (twelve of them) are the Apostles of Jesus Christ. In order to be that they have to be called and sent by Jesus. If they are sent by someone else then they are not an apostle of Jesus but rather an apostle of whoever sent them. We have many apostles today. But instead of calling them apostles, we call them by their Latin designation, missionaries. Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:1). Matthias is not. Matthis replaced Judas in the episcopcy but not in the apostleship.

It is disappointing that you have not commented on the teaching of Benedict XVI pointed to by a link previously provided. Here it is again.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html

Benedict directly addresses the problems you are having with twelve apostles, Matthias, Paul, episcope, bishop, Apostolic Succession etc.
It is almost as if it is directed personally to you.

Hopefully you won’t dismiss it with a “Quite frankly, I don’t think any of that matters.” But, let us see.

Here are a few paragraphs from the link:

…
And so it is that this reciprocity comes about: on the one hand, the word needs the person, but on the other, the person, the witness, is bound to the word, entrusted to him and not invented by him. This reciprocity between the content - the Word of God, life of the Lord - and the person who carries on the work is characteristic of the Church’s structure. Let us meditate today on this personal aspect of the Church.

The Lord founded the Church, as we have seen, by calling together the Twelve, who were to represent the future People of God. Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place (cf. Acts 1: 15-26), thereby continuing to involve others in the duties entrusted to them so that they might continue their ministry.

The Risen Lord himself called Paul (cf. Gal 1: 1), but Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve (cf. ibid., 1: 18), and was concerned to transmit what he had received (cf. I Cor 11: 23; 15: 3-4). In the distribution of missionary tasks, he was associated with the Apostles together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Gal 2: 9).

Just as becoming an Apostle begins with being called and sent out by the Risen One, so the subsequent call and sending out to others was to be brought about, through the power of the Spirit, by those who are already ordained in the apostolic ministry. And this is the way in which this ministry, known from the second generation as the episcopal ministry, episcope, was to be continued.

Perhaps it would be useful to explain briefly what “Bishop” means. It is the Italian form of the Greek term, “episcopos”. This word means one who has a vision from on high, who looks with the heart. This is what St Peter himself calls Jesus in his First Letter: bishop, “Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (I Pt 2: 25).

And according to this new model of the Lord, who was the first Bishop, Guardian and Pastor of souls, the successors of the Apostles were later called Bishops, “episcopoi”. The role of “episcope” was entrusted to them. This specific role of the Bishop was gradually to evolve, in comparison with the origins, until it took the form - already clearly attested to by Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century (cf. Ad Magnesios, 6, 1: PG 5, 668) - of the threefold office of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

This development was guided by God’s Spirit who helps the Church in the discernment of the authentic forms of Apostolic Succession, ever more clearly defined among the plurality of experiences and charismatic and ministerial forms present in the earliest communities.

In this way, succession in the role of Bishop is presented as the continuity of the Apostolic ministry, a guarantee of the permanence of the Apostolic Tradition, word and life, entrusted to us by the Lord. The link between the College of Bishops and the original community of the Apostles is understood above all in the line of historical continuity.

As we have seen, first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve, then others, until, in the second and third generations, the Bishop’s ministry took shape.
…

 

[ezeekl]

It is disappointing that you have not commented on the teaching of Benedict XVI pointed to by a link previously provided. Here it is again.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html

Benedict directly addresses the problems you are having with twelve apostles, Matthias, Paul, episcope, bishop, Apostolic Succession etc.
It is almost as if it is directed personally to you.

Hopefully you won’t dismiss it with a “Quite frankly, I don’t think any of that matters.” But, let us see.

Actually I did read it and quite frankly, Pope Benedict said many of the same things I did. Such as:

“**Just as becoming an Apostle begins with being called and sent out by the Risen One, **so the subsequent call and sending out to others was to be brought about, through the power of the Spirit, by those who are already ordained in the apostolic ministry. And this is the way in which this ministry, known from the second generation as the episcopal ministry, episcope, was to be continued”

Note here that the Pope and I are in aggreement that to be an apostle, one must be called and sent by the Risen One. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Risen One. Then he says that those “…already ordained in the apostolic ministry” (the eleven) subsequently called and sent out others. This was the second generation which the pope calls the episcopal ministry Looks like the pope and I are in lock step.

Then he goes on to say, “…the successors of the Apostles were later called Bishops, “episcopoi”. The role of “episcope” was entrusted to them” That does not conflict with anything I said.

The pope continues:

“In this way, succession in the role of Bishop is presented as the continuity of the Apostolic ministry, a guarantee of the permanence of the Apostolic Tradition, word and life, entrusted to us by the Lord. The link between the College of Bishops and the original community of the Apostles is understood above all in the line of historical continuity.”

Once again we agree.

Then the pope says:

“As we have seen, first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve, then others, until, in the second and third generations, the Bishop’s ministry took shape”

This does not contradict what I said. He is speaking of the apostolic succession of bishops from the apostolic (first) generation. He already called the second generation the
'episcopal generation".

But here is what I don’t see and this matters. I don’t see the pope calling Matthias an apostle. I see the pope saying that to be an apostle one must begin with with being called and then sent out by the Risen One. Now the question: If after writing and teaching this, would Pope Benedict say that Matthias was called and sent out by the Risen One? I don’t think so.

 

[osjknights]

The eleven, plus Matthias, and Paul were directly chosen by God; (a) through the Lord; Mark 3:13; (b) through the Risen Lord via prayer; Acts 1:24-25; (c) the Risen Lord; Acts 9:15, and (d) via the directive of the Holy Spirit; Acts 13:2 3. These were uniquely witnesses to our Lord’s resurrection, and chosen by God. Paul is always ranked as an Apostle. Acts 9:10-18, and Acts 26:15-18 makes it clear that the Lord had commissioned Saul/Paul. It can also be noted in Acts 12:1-2 that the Apostle James was martyred early on, and possibly other Apostles under King Herod. Thus there was a further gap or gaps in the Apostolic band. In Acts 13:2-3, Saul/Paul is ordained and sent out by the directive of the Holy Spirit (jointly with Barnabas). It is after this in Acts 14:14 that Paul is called an apostle (& Barnabas – but Barnabas lacked the specific commissioning Paul received from the Lord himself on the Damascus Road). Paul with his direct commission from the Risen Lord was an ‘Apostle’, and Barnabas an ‘apostle’ (lower case). Whilst some may have questioned the fact the Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 9:2) the Council in Jerusalem of the Apostles and Elders confirmed the calling of Paul (along with Barnabas) in Acts 15:22, cf. Galatians 2:9; “James and Cephas and John, … gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me”. It is not inconceivable that Paul and possibly Barnabas filled the gap left by Apostle Martyrs such as James.
Other “apostles”, such as noted in 1 Corinthians 15:7. These were the missionaries who were sent out by the Lord with a limited commission in Luke 10:1. The same designation is given to those commissioned and sent out by the Churches. The word apostle is used of such, but not identified with the twelve of that specific title – as it were a “lower case” example. Already the 12 Apostles (“upper case”) have been noted in 1 Corinthians 15:5 under the description “the twelve”. Often the alternate ‘messenger’ is used as a translation, when referring to someone who was not of the Apostolic band. Even where most translations use apostle for 1 Corinthians 15:7, J.B. Phillips in his New Testament has: “He was then seen by James, then by all the messengers.” Cf. New Life Version (NLV); “After that, James saw Christ. Then all the missionaries saw Him”. Paul identifies the wider defined group (lower case) as apostles of the Churches; “As for our brothers, they are messengers (Greek = apostles) of the churches” – 2 Corinthians 8:23. Also Paul describes Epaphroditus as the messenger (lit. apostle) of the Philippian church, Philippians 2:25. Compare with; “Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” Galatians 1:1; “Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus” 1 Corinthians 1:1. In other words such as Paul were Apostles of Jesus Christ.
Yet other Apostles: As to the claim that Andronicus and Junia of Romans 16:7 were Apostles (capital “A”), after an exhaustive search of all the uses of “notable among” in Greek Literature, biblical and non-biblical, the use is that of “counted by” (non-inclusive) rather than “counted among” (inclusive). See Burer, Associate Professor Michael H, and Wallace Professor Daniel Baird, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re examination of Rom 16.7” in New Testament Studies, 47, pp 76-91, Cambridge University Press 2001. Also; Burer, Assistant Professor Michael, Reassessing Junia: A Review of Eldon Epp’s Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2008. Thus the ESV reads; “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” Most treatments on this subject isolate Junia, but the issue is the same for Andronicus, as is outlined in the article by Professor David Huttar in “Did Paul call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans 16:7, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society December 2009, pages 747-778, where Professor Huttar suggests that the non-inclusive interpretation is more probable. It can also be noted that there is no account of a commissioning and ordination of Andronicus and Junia by the Risen Lord, or confirmation by the Council of Apostles and Elders, which would be expected had they been noted members of those who held the office of Apostle! As they had been fellow prisoners of Paul (and within the scope of Luke’s information), as notable Apostles, they would have merited some mention in the Acts of their commissioning as was true of Barnabas and Paul. It can be noted that Andronicus and Junia are not the only ones commended by Paul as being held in high esteem by others. Paul writes; “with him (Titus) we are sending the brother of whom praise in the gospel is throughout all the churches.”
Dr Michael Foster - whislt my PhD is in Psychology I have a Certificate in Theology from Oxford University.

 

[ezeekl]

The eleven, plus Matthias, and Paul were directly chosen by God; (a) through the Lord; Mark 3:13; (b) through the Risen Lord via prayer; Acts 1:24-25; (c) the Risen Lord; Acts 9:15, and (d) via the directive of the Holy Spirit; Acts 13:2 3. These were uniquely witnesses to our Lord’s resurrection, and chosen by God. Paul is always ranked as an Apostle. Acts 9:10-18, and Acts 26:15-18 makes it clear that the Lord had commissioned Saul/Paul. It can also be noted in Acts 12:1-2 that the Apostle James was martyred early on, and possibly other Apostles under King Herod. Thus there was a further gap or gaps in the Apostolic band. In Acts 13:2-3, Saul/Paul is ordained and sent out by the directive of the Holy Spirit (jointly with Barnabas). It is after this in Acts 14:14 that Paul is called an apostle (& Barnabas – but Barnabas lacked the specific commissioning Paul received from the Lord himself on the Damascus Road). Paul with his direct commission from the Risen Lord was an ‘Apostle’, and Barnabas an ‘apostle’ (lower case). Whilst some may have questioned the fact the Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 9:2) the Council in Jerusalem of the Apostles and Elders confirmed the calling of Paul (along with Barnabas) in Acts 15:22, cf. Galatians 2:9; “James and Cephas and John, … gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me”. It is not inconceivable that Paul and possibly Barnabas filled the gap left by Apostle Martyrs such as James.
Other “apostles”, such as noted in 1 Corinthians 15:7. These were the missionaries who were sent out by the Lord with a limited commission in Luke 10:1. The same designation is given to those commissioned and sent out by the Churches. The word apostle is used of such, but not identified with the twelve of that specific title – as it were a “lower case” example. Already the 12 Apostles (“upper case”) have been noted in 1 Corinthians 15:5 under the description “the twelve”. Often the alternate ‘messenger’ is used as a translation, when referring to someone who was not of the Apostolic band. Even where most translations use apostle for 1 Corinthians 15:7, J.B. Phillips in his New Testament has: “He was then seen by James, then by all the messengers.” Cf. New Life Version (NLV); “After that, James saw Christ. Then all the missionaries saw Him”. Paul identifies the wider defined group (lower case) as apostles of the Churches; “As for our brothers, they are messengers (Greek = apostles) of the churches” – 2 Corinthians 8:23. Also Paul describes Epaphroditus as the messenger (lit. apostle) of the Philippian church, Philippians 2:25. Compare with; “Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” Galatians 1:1; “Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus” 1 Corinthians 1:1. In other words such as Paul were Apostles of Jesus Christ.
Yet other Apostles: As to the claim that Andronicus and Junia of Romans 16:7 were Apostles (capital “A”), after an exhaustive search of all the uses of “notable among” in Greek Literature, biblical and non-biblical, the use is that of “counted by” (non-inclusive) rather than “counted among” (inclusive). See Burer, Associate Professor Michael H, and Wallace Professor Daniel Baird, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re examination of Rom 16.7” in New Testament Studies, 47, pp 76-91, Cambridge University Press 2001. Also; Burer, Assistant Professor Michael, Reassessing Junia: A Review of Eldon Epp’s Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2008. Thus the ESV reads; “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” Most treatments on this subject isolate Junia, but the issue is the same for Andronicus, as is outlined in the article by Professor David Huttar in “Did Paul call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans 16:7, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society December 2009, pages 747-778, where Professor Huttar suggests that the non-inclusive interpretation is more probable. It can also be noted that there is no account of a commissioning and ordination of Andronicus and Junia by the Risen Lord, or confirmation by the Council of Apostles and Elders, which would be expected had they been noted members of those who held the office of Apostle! As they had been fellow prisoners of Paul (and within the scope of Luke’s information), as notable Apostles, they would have merited some mention in the Acts of their commissioning as was true of Barnabas and Paul. It can be noted that Andronicus and Junia are not the only ones commended by Paul as being held in high esteem by others. Paul writes; “with him (Titus) we are sending the brother of whom praise in the gospel is throughout all the churches.”
Dr Michael Foster - whislt my PhD is in Psychology I have a Certificate in Theology from Oxford University.

I think we covered this early with the word Apostle having a specific meaning and a generic meaning. Also, in the generic meaning, the word apostle is no longer used today, at least in the West. Instead we use the word missionary. The East still uses apostle because it is a Greek word while missionary comes to us from the Latin and the Greeks loathe anything Latin.

 

[_thaddeus]

Actually I did read it and quite frankly, Pope Benedict said many of the same things I did. Such as:

…

Then the pope says:

“As we have seen, first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve, then others, until, in the second and third generations, the Bishop’s ministry took shape”

This does not contradict what I said. He is speaking of the apostolic succession of bishops from the apostolic (first) generation. He already called the second generation the
'episcopal generation".

But here is what I don’t see and this matters. I don’t see the pope calling Matthias an apostle. I see the pope saying that to be an apostle one must begin with with being called and then sent out by the Risen One. Now the question: If after writing and teaching this, would Pope Benedict say that Matthias was called and sent out by the Risen One? I don’t think so.

Your comment was disappointing. It is nice though that you found Pope Emiritus Benedict XVI such an agreeable guy.

You repeatedly say Benedict agrees with you. Do you also agree with him?

One can often gain a more accurate insight into a person’s intellectual honesty by what that person tries to ignore, hide and distort rather than what that person attempts to try to preach.

Here are a few of your problems.​

Benedict: “the person, the witness, is bound to the word, entrusted to him and not invented by him.”
[translation: don’t make it up as you go along] You seem to have missed this.

---

Benedict: “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place”.
[translation: Matthias replaced Judas as one of the Twelve]
[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Benedict is wrong. Matthias cannot be one of the Twelve Apostles. He is too bishopy.]

---

Benedict: "The Risen Lord himself called Paul (cf. Gal 1: 1), but Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve (cf. ibid., 1: 18), and was concerned to transmit what he had received (cf. I Cor 11: 23; 15: 3-4). In the distribution of missionary tasks, he was associated with the Apostles together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Gal 2: 9).

Just as becoming an Apostle begins with being called and sent out by the Risen One, so the subsequent call and sending out to others was to be brought about, through the power of the Spirit, by those who are already ordained in the apostolic ministry. And this is the way in which this ministry, known from the second generation as the episcopal ministry, episcope, was to be continued."

[translation by ezeekl: “Note here that the Pope and I are in aggreement that to be an apostle, one must be called and sent by the Risen One. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Risen One. Then he says that those “…already ordained in the apostolic ministry” (the eleven) subsequently called and sent out others. This was the second generation which the pope calls the episcopal ministry Looks like the pope and I are in lock step.”]

[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Those apostles could not have been “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension” because Matthias was never an apostle. “…already ordained in the apostolic ministry” (the eleven)" Just so everyone knows that Benedict really means (the eleven), I added it. So what that, Benedict says “Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve”. He really does mean (the eleven). Benedict agrees with everything I claim. I am not deliberately deceptive.]

---

Benedict: Perhaps it would be useful to explain briefly what “Bishop” means. It is the Italian form of the Greek term, “episcopos”. This word means one who has a vision from on high, who looks with the heart. This is what St Peter himself calls Jesus in his First Letter: bishop, “Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (I Pt 2: 25).

[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Quite frankly Benedict is wrong. He does not understand what “episcopos” means. He should have said that “episcopos” really means what I plagiarized from the Holman Bible Dictionary. My personal inerrant lexicon and my personal inerrant non-english bible agree with me. Being ignorant of ancient dialects of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek is no hindrance to my pretentious personal understanding.]​

etc.

You don’t see “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place”?

Your English is very difficult to logically understand. Are you now trying to say that neither Matthias nor Paul were Apostles?

What you don’t see doesn’t really matter all that much. Your view appears blinkered, “A one-way peephole in a door” and you are unable to see or comprehend anything beyond that limited view. Hopefully that condition will not be permanent.

Are you still trying to claim that with your understanding you “see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”?

Here is your last sentence corrected for accuracy and context. Service provided gratis. “I don’t think so.” should read “I don’t think. So?”

Good luck in your preaching.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How can anyone who did not live at that time and be in Matthias’ shoes KNOW his interactions with Jesus?

There are many things we do not know.

“The 12” has significance beyond apostleship and beyond being a bishop.

“The 12” will judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

Matthias filling out the missing spot of Judas was NOT simply becoming one SENT by the other 11 even though they did cast lots and prayed that the Lord would indicate His election.

Matthias rounding out the 12 was not simply Matthias becoming a bishop even though he did become a bishop.

Matthias being an apostle was not ALL that was involved in him rounding out the 12 even though he was an apostle just like Barnabas.

Matthias being one of “the 12” was significant because he followed Jesus for three years.

And who alive today who was not in Matthias shoes can DEFINITIVELY say what interactions he had with Jesus?

Paul is an apostle–Paul is not of the 12–and yes I do believe it was Jesus’ will that Matthias be “one of the 12” and an apostle and a bishop and Paul be an apostle and a bishop and NOT be “one of the 12”.

Being a bishop and being an apostle are SUBSETS of being “one of the 12”.

 

[ezeekl]

Your comment was disappointing. It is nice though that you found Pope Emiritus Benedict XVI such an agreeable guy.

You repeatedly say Benedict agrees with you. Do you also agree with him?

One can often gain a more accurate insight into a person’s intellectual honesty by what that person tries to ignore, hide and distort rather than what that person attempts to try to preach.

Here are a few of your problems.​

Benedict: “the person, the witness, is bound to the word, entrusted to him and not invented by him.”
[translation: don’t make it up as you go along] You seem to have missed this.

---

Benedict: “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place”.
[translation: Matthias replaced Judas as one of the Twelve]
[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Benedict is wrong. Matthias cannot be one of the Twelve Apostles. He is too bishopy.]

---

Benedict: "The Risen Lord himself called Paul (cf. Gal 1: 1), but Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve (cf. ibid., 1: 18), and was concerned to transmit what he had received (cf. I Cor 11: 23; 15: 3-4). In the distribution of missionary tasks, he was associated with the Apostles together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Gal 2: 9).

Just as becoming an Apostle begins with being called and sent out by the Risen One, so the subsequent call and sending out to others was to be brought about, through the power of the Spirit, by those who are already ordained in the apostolic ministry. And this is the way in which this ministry, known from the second generation as the episcopal ministry, episcope, was to be continued."

[translation by ezeekl: “Note here that the Pope and I are in aggreement that to be an apostle, one must be called and sent by the Risen One. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Risen One. Then he says that those “…already ordained in the apostolic ministry” (the eleven) subsequently called and sent out others. This was the second generation which the pope calls the episcopal ministry Looks like the pope and I are in lock step.”]

[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Those apostles could not have been “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension” because Matthias was never an apostle. “…already ordained in the apostolic ministry” (the eleven)" Just so everyone knows that Benedict really means (the eleven), I added it. So what that, Benedict says “Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve”. He really does mean (the eleven). Benedict agrees with everything I claim. I am not deliberately deceptive.]

---

Benedict: Perhaps it would be useful to explain briefly what “Bishop” means. It is the Italian form of the Greek term, “episcopos”. This word means one who has a vision from on high, who looks with the heart. This is what St Peter himself calls Jesus in his First Letter: bishop, “Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (I Pt 2: 25).

[putting words into ezeekl’s mouth: Quite frankly Benedict is wrong. He does not understand what “episcopos” means. He should have said that “episcopos” really means what I plagiarized from the Holman Bible Dictionary. My personal inerrant lexicon and my personal inerrant non-english bible agree with me. Being ignorant of ancient dialects of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek is no hindrance to my pretentious personal understanding.]​

etc.

You don’t see “Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place”?

Your English is very difficult to logically understand. Are you now trying to say that neither Matthias nor Paul were Apostles?

What you don’t see doesn’t really matter all that much. Your view appears blinkered, “A one-way peephole in a door” and you are unable to see or comprehend anything beyond that limited view. Hopefully that condition will not be permanent.

Are you still trying to claim that with your understanding you “see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”?

Here is your last sentence corrected for accuracy and context. Service provided gratis. “I don’t think so.” should read “I don’t think. So?”

Good luck in your preaching.

We all can do with out the condescending attitude. And you did a great job of putting words in mouth. Words I never said. And you admit it too! I argued my case from scripture and from what the pope said in Acts 1. [that was Pope Peter] Pope benedict did not state Matthias was an Apostle. Yes he joined the twelve but as a bishop. Peter’s call was to place someone in the episcopal office that Judas held. That is what scripture says and what you deny. Just as today where the authority in the church rests with the bishops so too in the very early church the authority rested with the Apostles who were bishops. Now maybe you can be so kind as to show us all where Jesus called and sent Matthias as Pope Benedict said was the mark of an Apostle. Of course, we all know that you can’t. Or maybe you can tell us when the Apostle James was martyred what Apostle did the other Apostles select to replace him? Because, according to you, you gotta have twelve, you know.

 

[_thaddeus]

We all can do with out the condescending attitude. And you did a great job of putting words in mouth. Words I never said. And you admit it too! I argued my case from scripture and from what the pope said in Acts 1. [that was Pope Peter] Pope benedict did not state Matthias was an Apostle. Yes he joined the twelve but as a bishop. Peter’s call was to place someone in the episcopal office that Judas held. That is what scripture says and what you deny. Just as today where the authority in the church rests with the bishops so too in the very early church the authority rested with the Apostles who were bishops. Now maybe you can be so kind as to show us all where Jesus called and sent Matthias as Pope Benedict said was the mark of an Apostle. Of course, we all know that you can’t. Or maybe you can tell us when the Apostle James was martyred what Apostle did the other Apostles select to replace him? Because, according to you, you gotta have twelve, you know.

Thank you. Are any of the words put in ezeekl’s mouth not in harmony with how and what you are trying to preach?

You do not argue your case from scripture. You say “Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either.” and “I believe the scriptures to be inerrant.” Except: Not newer english translations that disagree with me. Only the older english translations that agree with me. No. Not any english translation, at all. They don’t agree with me. No Jerome’s Vulgate or any Latin Vulgate translation either. Maybe they might agree with me but I don’t understand Latin either. So Only ancient dialects of Greek writings that I am unable to understand.

Most people (including Catholics) in this world are not experts in ancient dialects of Greek and freely state that fact. Yet you presumptuously and as an “expert” tell them “But since you are admitting that you do not understand Greek themn maybe you should begin a self help program to be better at it.” Here is a suggestion. “begin a self help program to be better at it.” Do a search on biblical greek and go for it.

The Bible, Paul and Benedict show clearly, both individually and all together now that Matthias was one of the twelve apostles. Reread the Bible and also Benedict’s teachings that were supplied to you. Try CCC 107,108 again. You seem to have missed understanding it the first time around. Do read again the many posts by many people who have tried to help you. You may want to brush up on your English comprehension and Koine Greek comprehension first. You do understand that Paul was also an Apostle? Don’t you? Take a deep breath and swallow the truth. Even people who say “Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either” should be able to understand. Realize that you are not smarter than God and the Apostles, however difficult that may be for you to grasp.

If you are unable or unwilling then here is another suggestion. Rewrite the parts of the bible that you find not to your satisfaction, preferably in Koine Greek. Be free in correcting anything that you don’t like.

Your use of the phrases “us all” and “we all” and previously “I may add that I am not alone in this either.” stuck out. Are you talking about Catholics?

You are aware that some people get cheap thrills by worshipping at the Church of anti-Catholicism. They get their kicks by perverting the bible and promulgating talking points to try to prove themselves. They repeat themselves like a broken record. It only provides them some temporary personal “malicious satisfaction” but that is their heaven. Apostolic succession and God forbid papal succession(aka papist succession) are anathema to them.

You look to be cribbing some of their talking points. Is that correct? Is that what your “us all” and “we all” is comprised of?
If you personally are not using the royal we when you say “we all” then your “we all” deserve the royal wee.

Good luck in your preaching.

 

[ezeekl]

Thank you. Are any of the words put in ezeekl’s mouth not in harmony with how and what you are trying to preach?

You do not argue your case from scripture. You say “Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either.” and “I believe the scriptures to be inerrant.” Except: Not newer english translations that disagree with me. Only the older english translations that agree with me. No. Not any english translation, at all. They don’t agree with me. No Jerome’s Vulgate or any Latin Vulgate translation either. Maybe they might agree with me but I don’t understand Latin either. So Only ancient dialects of Greek writings that I am unable to understand.

Most people (including Catholics) in this world are not experts in ancient dialects of Greek and freely state that fact. Yet you presumptuously and as an “expert” tell them “But since you are admitting that you do not understand Greek themn maybe you should begin a self help program to be better at it.” Here is a suggestion. “begin a self help program to be better at it.” Do a search on biblical greek and go for it.

The Bible, Paul and Benedict show clearly, both individually and all together now that Matthias was one of the twelve apostles. Reread the Bible and also Benedict’s teachings that were supplied to you. Try CCC 107,108 again. You seem to have missed understanding it the first time around. Do read again the many posts by many people who have tried to help you. You may want to brush up on your English comprehension and Koine Greek comprehension first. You do understand that Paul was also an Apostle? Don’t you? Take a deep breath and swallow the truth. Even people who say “Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either” should be able to understand. Realize that you are not smarter than God and the Apostles, however difficult that may be for you to grasp.

If you are unable or unwilling then here is another suggestion. Rewrite the parts of the bible that you find not to your satisfaction, preferably in Koine Greek. Be free in correcting anything that you don’t like.

Your use of the phrases “us all” and “we all” and previously “I may add that I am not alone in this either.” stuck out. Are you talking about Catholics?

You are aware that some people get cheap thrills by worshipping at the Church of anti-Catholicism. They get their kicks by perverting the bible and promulgating talking points to try to prove themselves. They repeat themselves like a broken record. It only provides them some temporary personal “malicious satisfaction” but that is their heaven. Apostolic succession and God forbid papal succession(aka papist succession) are anathema to them.

You look to be cribbing some of their talking points. Is that correct? Is that what your “us all” and “we all” is comprised of?
If you personally are not using the royal we when you say “we all” then your “we all” deserve the royal wee.

Good luck in your preaching.

Thank you. Even though your post is uncharitable I thank you. Someone once told me that you know when you got them licked when they quit attacking the message and go after the messenger. You have proved that true once more. And I really do thank you.

 

[_thaddeus]

Thank you. Even though your post is uncharitable I thank you. Someone once told me that you know when you got them licked when they quit attacking the message and go after the messenger. You have proved that true once more. And I really do thank you.

“Thank you.”, “I thank you.”, “And I really do thank you.”

You’re welcome. Thank you too.

You confuse “Yourself” with “Your Message”. You the Messenger(ezeekl) say that Your Message(ezeekl’s) is “I see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”

As proof you claim your personal understanding and knowledge to be superior to any translation of the bible, the Church, Pope Emiritus Benedict XVI and anyone else who might dare disagree with you or question your inerrancy. “you got them licked”

Your Message is silly. Is that too uncharitable? You may not like the way advice is presented but try followinging it. It may help with your compulsion as inerrant Messenger.

Here are some charitable remarks from the Messenger.
“maybe you don’t have as much of an appreciation of the Writen Tradition as maybe you should”, “Quite frankly, I don’t think any of that matters.”, “Total nonsense.”, “A self serving statement if there ever was one.”, “Orthodox abhor Latin” and “Now, with that, my participation in this thread is over. You may now post as to why your positions do not induce error into the scriptures.”

It is understood that disagreeing with the Messenger’s Message and how the Messenger preaches his Message is disagreeable to the Messenger.

There was a glimmer of hope when you said “IF (big if) Matthias was elected as an Apostle then a form of the word apostolos would have been used insteadof episkope.” Then you relapsed into your selfsame cant. These links(Protestant) may help you. teknia.com/greek-dictionary/toc/alpha and teknia.com/greek-dictionary/toc/epsilon Then again they may not.

It’s easy to fix. All you gotta do is say that my claim of “I see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.” may (possibly, perhaps, conceivably, maybe) not be absolutely correct. Is that charitable enough?

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. “You do understand that Paul was also an Apostle? Don’t you?”

Good luck with your preaching.

 

[ezeekl]

thaddeus[/I];11350554Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. “You do understand that Paul was also an Apostle? Don’t you?”

Isn’t that what I have been saying all along? Okay, one more time. Paul is the twelfth apostle. Matthias is a bishop, nothing more.
[/quote]

 

[rcwitness]

Isn’t that what I have been saying all along? Okay, one more time. Paul is the twelfth apostle. Matthias is a bishop, nothing more.

What is Matthias bishop of ???